Centric-Jones Co. v. Hufnagel
Supreme Court of Colorado
1DissentJustice Yollack
In declining to apply fundamental principles of contract law to offers of settlement, the majority concludes that, pursuant to section 13-17-202(3), 6A C.R.S. (1992 Supp.), “an offer of settlement remains open for the entire ten-day period, regardless of whether the offer is rejected.” Maj. op. at 946. I disagree. I conversely find that well settled canons of statutory construction and fundamental principles of contract law dictate that an offer of settlement made pursuant to section 13-17-202(3) is revocable. I also conclude that, in the present case, Centric-Jones rejected the settlement…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Mallory v. EyrichCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
- Martha Johnson and Delores J. Ceballos, Etc. v. University College of the University of Alabama in Birmingham George W. Campbell, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- Trimble v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1985
- Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1992
- Ronald J. Radecki and Radecki's Service, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. Amoco Oil Company, a Maryland CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1988
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.